Oh yes, all Christians in the west were suddenly denied the life giving Body and Blood of Christ just because of some squabble between a Cardinal and a Patriarch. EO sacramental theology makes no sense.

Who are you calling EO?

Eastern Orthodox

Yes, I'm wondering who you are calling Eastern Orthodox?

I am not calling you EO, I know you have not yet decided on that matter. But the position you are espousing is the EO position, though it may be shared by the OO churches as well. I don't know for certain. Just know that by EO I am talking about the sacramental theology being espoused by many in this thread.

You were explicitly talking to me. I was the only one who had made a negative statement about the OP by that time. You explicitly called my position EO and also said that my view was based off of the schism between a Cardinal and the Bishop of Constantinople. It seems pretty strongly like you were confusing me for an EO.

I apologize if that is the message you got. I think this is a side discussion, so shall we continue our discussion on sacramental theology?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a persons sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

It's already been explained by Anastasios that this is not what we mean. You're just grabbing at straws again.

No I am not. I am showing why your position doesn't work.

Seeing as how we never said that sacramental grace was at one point partially there, it's clearly a straw man. Anastasios clearly stated that it is "all or nothing". The gradual part of the process is the proper conditions for Sacraments disappearing and it happening at various times in various local churches. As to any particular local church, the sacramental grace is either there or not.

So it was in one part of the Catholic Church and not in another? So Catholics in Ireland might have been receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while those in Rome were not? Would this be true even though those Catholics were in communion with Rome?

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

I would like to reemphasize what I have said numerous times on this site, though; while I do not believe that sacramental grace exists outside the Church, I believe there is charismatic grace, and that God does not abandon ignorant people who have done nothing positive to break communion with the Church. (Nor do I think a loving God would create Native Americans from 33AD until the 1500's knowing they would all die without baptism and go to hell; there must be some provision for such people).

So you see no difference between the grace recieved by a Trinitarian Christian that is not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the grace received by a pagan?

Not necessarily the case, but the former nonetheless does not have sacramental grace.

Well, according to the line of thinking I am seeing in this thread, neither has sacramental grace, and at best the two groups both can receive "charismatic grace" (whatever that means), and so non-Byzatine Trinitarian Christians are in the same boat as Pagans.

Trinitarian Christians could easily be viewed as receiving greater charismatic grace than Pagans.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Well please do share. Because from what I can tell, extremely holy persons such as Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila achieved great sanctity while worshiping bread.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Well please do share. Because from what I can tell, extremely holy persons such as Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila achieved great sanctity while worshiping bread.

They did.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

So how do idolaters achieve such sanctity? I am really confused now.

By the mercy of God.

Strange, considering how God punshed idolotry in the Old Testament.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

« Last Edit: January 22, 2010, 06:47:39 PM by Papist »

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

But not really. They were worshiping the Lord Jesus. They were directing their worship towards something they thought was a legitimate manifestation of Him. It was not. But nonetheless they were worshiping the Lord.

Didn't the Israelites in the desert believe that the golden calf was Yaweh?

Not so far as I know.

I will have to look it up but didn't some say something to the effect of, "See, Israel, here is your god who lead you out of Egypt," with reference to the golden calf?

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a persons sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

It's already been explained by Anastasios that this is not what we mean. You're just grabbing at straws again.

No I am not. I am showing why your position doesn't work.

Seeing as how we never said that sacramental grace was at one point partially there, it's clearly a straw man. Anastasios clearly stated that it is "all or nothing". The gradual part of the process is the proper conditions for Sacraments disappearing and it happening at various times in various local churches. As to any particular local church, the sacramental grace is either there or not.

So it was in one part of the Catholic Church and not in another? So Catholics in Ireland might have been receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while those in Rome were not? Would this be true even though those Catholics were in communion with Rome?

Actually, there is a popular EO tradition that the church of the British Isles remained with grace until the Norman invasion in 1066.

What is really weird to me is that idea that suddenly all the western Christians peasants who may have never even heard of the Patriarch of Constantinople were suddenly denied the Body and Blood of the Lord whom they loved. What I find unbelievalbe is that men and women who loved Jesus Christ as much as St. John of the Cross or St. Teresa of Avila did, were worshiping and receiving bread and wine and not Jesus Christ. Such profound spiritual growth seen in persons like St. John Viani or St. Padre Pio, would be impossible with "false and graceless sacraments". I think the EO position has to ignore the reality.

I agree.

The only way that one could come to this understanding of holy people necessarily indicating the Church is if one does not understand the Orthodox understanding of the Church and its Sacraments.

Well please do share. Because from what I can tell, extremely holy persons such as Sts. John of the Cross and Teresa of Avila achieved great sanctity while worshiping bread.

They did.

That's exactly what I'm saying.

So how do idolaters achieve such sanctity? I am really confused now.

By the mercy of God.

Strange, considering how God punshed idolotry in the Old Testament.

Honestly, I think it is a bit of a straw man because I never said that I believed the Roman Eucharist was idolatrous.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

They are worshiping God (in so far as this is possible in the context of your erroneous theology). They are mistakenly using bread as a vehicle for this worship thinking that it is God.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

I would like to reemphasize what I have said numerous times on this site, though; while I do not believe that sacramental grace exists outside the Church, I believe there is charismatic grace, and that God does not abandon ignorant people who have done nothing positive to break communion with the Church. (Nor do I think a loving God would create Native Americans from 33AD until the 1500's knowing they would all die without baptism and go to hell; there must be some provision for such people).

So you see no difference between the grace recieved by a Trinitarian Christian that is not in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church and the grace received by a pagan?

Not necessarily the case, but the former nonetheless does not have sacramental grace.

Well, according to the line of thinking I am seeing in this thread, neither has sacramental grace, and at best the two groups both can receive "charismatic grace" (whatever that means), and so non-Byzatine Trinitarian Christians are in the same boat as Pagans.

Trinitarian Christians could easily be viewed as receiving greater charismatic grace than Pagans.

and greater responsibility.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What else do you expect on an Orthodox Forum... it's not like they are going to be overly kind to us... remember of the Massacre of the Latins? Let us count ourselves fortunate we don't live in the East!

Vwe have recorded your IP address, and through various covert means, vwe now know where you live! No one expects the OC.net inquisition! Mwahaha!

What else do you expect on an Orthodox Forum... it's not like they are going to be overly kind to us... remember of the Massacre of the Latins? Let us count ourselves fortunate we don't live in the East!

Vwe have recorded your IP address, and through various covert means, vwe now know where you live! No one expects the OC.net inquisition! Mwahaha!

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

What is hocus pocus is to say that grace magically disappeared from my Church.

'Magically?'

Who said that, other than you?

I see someone has already noted it was a gradual process.

How do sacraments "gradually" become fake. That is absurd.

The proper conditions for them to be sacraments slowly fade until they get to the point that the grace drains out of them.

That's what I am saying. Its silly. How can a sacrament have less and less grace. What? One day the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ, the next it was 1/2 of the Body and Blood of Christ, then the next is was 1/4, etc. ect? Or one day a persons sins were totally forgiven in confession but the next the were only 29/32 forgiven?

It's already been explained by Anastasios that this is not what we mean. You're just grabbing at straws again.

No I am not. I am showing why your position doesn't work.

Seeing as how we never said that sacramental grace was at one point partially there, it's clearly a straw man. Anastasios clearly stated that it is "all or nothing". The gradual part of the process is the proper conditions for Sacraments disappearing and it happening at various times in various local churches. As to any particular local church, the sacramental grace is either there or not.

So it was in one part of the Catholic Church and not in another? So Catholics in Ireland might have been receiving the Body and Blood of Christ while those in Rome were not? Would this be true even though those Catholics were in communion with Rome?

Actually, there is a popular EO tradition that the church of the British Isles remained with grace until the Norman invasion in 1066.

And Ireland, they say, remained Orthodox until the Anglo-Norman invasion and Synod of Cashel of 1172.

We also need to recall that various Orthodox Churches remained in communion with Rome after 1054. The cessation of communion took place over time. I think that the Church of Antioch was the last to be in communion, until the mid-12th century?

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

They are worshiping God (in so far as this is possible in the context of your erroneous theology). They are mistakenly using bread as a vehicle for this worship thinking that it is God.

As we know, the Orthodox do not have a consistent teaching on this. For at least the last 400 years the Russian Church has believed Catholic sacraments to be efficacious and grace-filled. (So it cannot be dismissed as a modern position held by arch-ecumenists!)

Given the recent statements by Pope Shenouda and Bishop Bishoy about baptism among Catholics and Protestants we can draw the conclusion that the Coptic Orthodox would deny the reality of the Catholic Eucharist. On the other hand, another OO Church, the Armenians, would affirm baptism and priesthood and eucharist for the Catholics.

For at least the last 400 years the Russian Church has believed Catholic sacraments to be efficacious and grace-filled. (So it cannot be dismissed as a modern position held by arch-ecumenists!)

I don't think that is the case, really. From my reading of some of those documents, I get the impression that they are trying to fit traditional Orthodox teaching in to an Augustinian distinction between valid and licit (terms outside of Orthodox consensus). When they say that Roman Catholic sacraments are valid, they don't mean per se. They mean they have valid form, which can be corrected by the Church (such as when the 3 million Byzantine Rite Catholics were restored to Orthodoxy in the 19th century en masse).

I am not denying that people like (St) Peter Moghila probably believed RC's had grace-filled sacraments, but I don't see "the" Russian Church for the past 400 years teaching that RC sacraments are grace-filled and efficacious. Also, grace-filled and efficacious are actually two different categories. Those positing a distinction between valid and licit in the West would say that the sacraments of schismatics are valid but NOT efficacious, because of the sin of schism (thus my earlier quip that this doctrine ensures an unending supply of blasphemy, by schismatics being able to perpetually offer the Eucharist, even though it does them no personal good). Modern RC thought has diverged a bit on this point to where "born Orthodox" are seen as somehow ok, while people like me (who left Roman Catholicism) are probably in big trouble (from their POV).

For at least the last 400 years the Russian Church has believed Catholic sacraments to be efficacious and grace-filled. (So it cannot be dismissed as a modern position held by arch-ecumenists!)

I don't think that is the case, really. From my reading of some of those documents, I get the impression that they are trying to fit traditional Orthodox teaching in to an Augustinian distinction between valid and licit (terms outside of Orthodox consensus). When they say that Roman Catholic sacraments are valid, they don't mean per se. They mean they have valid form, which can be corrected by the Church (such as when the 3 million Byzantine Rite Catholics were restored to Orthodoxy in the 19th century en masse).

Father,

I am not sure if you subscribe to orthodox-tradition where, for several weeks, Archpriest Alexander Lebedeff of the Russian Orthodox Church (Abroad) has been supplying documents from the past several hundred years showing that the Russian recognition of Roman Catholic sacraments is not "by form only" or "by economy" but simply outright recognition.

I have not kept these messages of his and trying to search Yahoo groups for messages more recent than one year ago generally won't work these days.... but I could locate these documents and repost them here. As you can imagine, it is Archbishop Hilarion's statements (2 of them) that the Russian Orthodox Church recognises Roman Catholic sacraments which gave rise to this thread on orthodox-tradition.

I gave my own position earlier - in message #37 in this thread and I imagine it is identical to yours...............

"I believe that the episcopate -the College of the Apostles- cannot exist outside the Church. Without the episcopate there can be no Sacraments. Do you know the writings of Fr Justin Popovich? - I tend to be a follower of his."

But I cannot claim that this is the universal Orthodox position. There are varying opinions on how far the 1054 schism removed mysteriological grace from the Church of Rome. Believe me, as you get older and encounter the varying positions, you learn not to agitated by them and you learn to live with the grey areas! I know that you understand this since you have written of your personal doubts if mysteriological grace has been removed from the ancient Orthodox Patriarchates even though your own Church has issued official statements saying that it has.

I quit the Orthodox-tradition list years ago because of the low-brow quality of much of the discussion. I would certainly be interested to read some of the statements that Fr Alexander provides, though, so please do provide them.

I recall that Fr John Shaw (now Bp Jerome) posted a few such statements some years ago, which did not strike me as really proving what he said they were saying, but I would be interested to read what Fr Alexander has dug up.

While I hope that I will enjoy as many years on the Earth as you have, I wouldn't guarantee that age produces moderation; after all, our saintly Archbishop Chrysostomos II is almost 90, and he has a rather strict position as far as I can tell...but I don't get agitated by such things at any rate. Facts are facts, and we have nothing to fear if we are seeking the truth. But at any rate, to me these statements of the Russian Church in the past on RC mysteries go right along with their refusal to baptize Roman Catholics; it was a policy that existed for some couple hundred years, but it was a mistake. It didn't invalidate them, but it has to be put in its proper historical position. Times have changed, the Roman Catholic Church has slid further into heresy since even a few hundred years ago, and the context then is quite different than Archbishop Hilarion's unfortunate (and in my opinion heretical) statements on RC sacraments now (which fit in to an ecumenistic model, which is a different model and framework than such statements in the past).

The bottom line to me is, we can drudge up all sorts of things from the past (times were certainly odd during the time of Eustratios Argenti; see the book with that title by Timothy Ware [now Met. Kallistos]), but we should be careful whenever we try to use such statements or practices to prove our current case now. I certainly think that applies to us Old Calendarists as well, to be fair.

Christ said that when two or three pray in His name, He is in the midst of them, that is true.

Not really. What He said was that "where two or three OF YOU are gathered in my name.."

I'm happy to concede that He would probably say also "where two or three OF THOSE NOT OF MY COMMUNITY are gathered in my name..." since His compassion is beyond measuring and He will never fail to respond to prayer.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

Wait, what about all the saints who became sanctified who took Communion like once or twice in 50 years? St. Mary of Egypt is one example of a saint who I think received the Eucharist once in her life. She certainly became sanctified without the Sacraments. Granted she was baptized, and did partake once of the Eucharist, but at her conversion. I doubt that grace was merely "stored up" for the next 50 years. We've had many desert fathers (pre schism) who also fit a similar pattern. Granted we would say they are the exception rather than the rule, but I don't think it's impossible to become holy without the Sacraments. At the same time once can have the Sacraments daily and be horrible and totally unholy.

That's not a comment on RC Sacraments BTW as I too believe they are "real" Sacraments, just saying I don't think one must partake of them to be made holy. However it's probably a more direct path.

Christ said that when two or three pray in His name, He is in the midst of them, that is true.

Not really. What He said was that "where two or three OF YOU are gathered in my name.."

I'm happy to concede that He would probably say also "where two or three OF THOSE NOT OF MY COMMUNITY are gathered in my name..." since His compassion is beyond measuring and He will never fail to respond to prayer.

LOL. I know Father. I just wanted to demonstrate that even with the most generous latitude, using it as a proof text for the subject at hand falls short.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

I don't really see how a video can be an argument for validity... Every religion out there can produce "miracles" and "signs" that their religion is the true one...

If the Orthodox Church says your sacraments are not valid, then that is the way it is.

I feel like this thread was just created to create an argument against Orthodoxy and for Catholicism...

And for what purpose, I don't know. We don't care what the Vatican says about our Holy Mysteries. Why do they care so much about what we have to say about their sacraments?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

In this circumstance, this makes me glad that I came back to Catholicism - I never noticed that Eastern Orthodoxy would transform me from a zealous person to an hateful fundamentalist, but that's what was happening to me.

Although I don't know you personally I wholly believe that what you did is wise. Rejecting one's (apostolic ) Christian heritage is not a decision to be lightly taken, sometimes just because of some infatuation with a more exotic "rite". Better wait for a corporate reunification in your ancient church of Rome an focus on more important matters like saving one's soul through faith and good works, than become unduly concerned with trifles like "who has grace, who doesn't" etc.

No, I really think that the debate about who "has grace" is really funny, a trifle, a waste of time and energy etc.It is also an unwritten custom with many Orthodox priests to rather discourage individual conversions from RC, because, with them, we still kind of hope in a corporate reunion some day, some time, God willing.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

Wait, what about all the saints who became sanctified who took Communion like once or twice in 50 years? St. Mary of Egypt is one example of a saint who I think received the Eucharist once in her life. She certainly became sanctified without the Sacraments. Granted she was baptized, and did partake once of the Eucharist, but at her conversion. I doubt that grace was merely "stored up" for the next 50 years. We've had many desert fathers (pre schism) who also fit a similar pattern. Granted we would say they are the exception rather than the rule, but I don't think it's impossible to become holy without the Sacraments. At the same time once can have the Sacraments daily and be horrible and totally unholy.

That's not a comment on RC Sacraments BTW as I too believe they are "real" Sacraments, just saying I don't think one must partake of them to be made holy. However it's probably a more direct path.

You are missing my point. Worshiping bread is a grave sin.

Logged

"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

No, I really think that the debate about who "has grace" is really funny, a trifle, a waste of time and energy etc.It is also an unwritten custom with many Orthodox priests to rather discourage individual conversions from RC, because, with them, we still kind of hope in a corporate reunion some day, some time, God willing.

Or they don't want to deal with those of the wrong tribe. Neo-Pharisees.

The return of Rome would be nice, but no one's communion with the fullness of the Faith should be on hold for it. Ditto with the WRO.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

No, I really think that the debate about who "has grace" is really funny, a trifle, a waste of time and energy etc.It is also an unwritten custom with many Orthodox priests to rather discourage individual conversions from RC, because, with them, we still kind of hope in a corporate reunion some day, some time, God willing.

Or they don't want to deal with those of the wrong tribe. Neo-Pharisees.

What does this have to do with my spiritual struggles. I was talking about many holy friends and then the undeniable sanctity of the saints.

In case this hasn't been made clear enough, holy people exist outside of the Church and sacramental grace, even in the Augustinian view of Sacraments. I don't see why you're thus seeing it as proof of Sacraments being in your religious group.

Because I don't think people can become holy by worshiping bread.

You think people cannot be made holy without the Sacraments?

I don't see how people who worship bread instead of God can be made holy.

They are worshiping God (in so far as this is possible in the context of your erroneous theology). They are mistakenly using bread as a vehicle for this worship thinking that it is God.

As we know, the Orthodox do not have a consistent teaching on this. For at least the last 400 years the Russian Church has believed Catholic sacraments to be efficacious and grace-filled. (So it cannot be dismissed as a modern position held by arch-ecumenists!)

Given the recent statements by Pope Shenouda and Bishop Bishoy about baptism among Catholics and Protestants we can draw the conclusion that the Coptic Orthodox would deny the reality of the Catholic Eucharist. On the other hand, another OO Church, the Armenians, would affirm baptism and priesthood and eucharist for the Catholics.

I'm aware. I happen to take a more conservative position of not recognizing the Roman ordinances because of their heresies.

Didn't your branch of christianity go into schism in the 4th century? Yet you want to come across as Orthodox as the Eastern Orthodox. There's a reason why your Church is not in communion. In schism with Eastern Orthodoxy, yet Orthodox? That's has always been myth to me. We were in communion longer with the EO than you.

Whether it was the OO who went into schism in the 5th century or you and the EO is up for debate.

No, I don't want to come across "as orthodox" as the EO, I want to come across as more orthodox than the EO.

And how did the EO suddenly become the undisputed standard of orthodoxy such that your last statement even matters?

Actually, from the OO point of view, it was the Chalcedonians who went into schism in the 5th century. But we're nice about it and call the EO's Orthodox anyway.

Mostly on the premise that they "fixed" their faith in the post-Chalcedonian councils. If they had simply left it at Chalcedon I bet significantly less people would be willing to call them orthodox.

Yeah, I know, but it would be best to keep this particular tangent in the private forum. This thread is a bit messy as it is.

I am sorry, I will no longer add to the confusion. I see an ice, cold, smooth one calling my name.

Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga

My use of "Romanist" is tangential to this and is a reference to the fundamental role the See of Rome plays in the life of the church commonly referred to as the "Catholic Church".

But isn't the See of Rome now Constantinople, at least from the point of view of the EO's? Isn't the Patriarch of Rome, from the EO point of view, His All Holiness Bartholomew?

Well, for one thing I don't view myself as any longer EO. So I don't see how it is relevant to my use of "Romanist".

Secondly, Constantinople was recognized as the "Second Rome" even when the "First Rome" was still in a somewhat stable condition of power. On a secular level it replaced the Old Rome as the capital of the Empire, but I think Rome is still Rome.